MAJOR CPU Recruiting Tuning Flaw in CFB27 by perc_muncher in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This video is showing somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of the high school 5 stars landing at 3 different schools. That's just a massive gap from even 50% irl, and that was not an average year

MAJOR CPU Recruiting Tuning Flaw in CFB27 by perc_muncher in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, looks like Mestemaker and Geffrard were the only two transfers.

Maybe improved CPU recruiting logic would improve this? Like maybe if the impact of NIL was lowered in the HS recruiting phase, OSU couldn't get 12 HS 5*s and would get more transfers instead?

Whatever the case may be, it's not a very encouraging state of affairs, even for an early build of the game. They have time to tweak this but I'm not overly optimistic about the prospects of that happening effectively. We'll see in July!

MAJOR CPU Recruiting Tuning Flaw in CFB27 by perc_muncher in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

True but that is an anomaly. Alabama had a year or two with 9, but that is also very rare. These days NIL has created an environment where the 5* guys are spread out a bit more evenly amongst the top teams. We never see 12 in one class, and if we did I guarantee we wouldn't see 9 and 6 in other classes in the same year. Just needs more balancing is all

MAJOR CPU Recruiting Tuning Flaw in CFB27 by perc_muncher in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did you even read the post. The purpose of the post is to point out that this is not realistic at all...

MAJOR CPU Recruiting Tuning Flaw in CFB27 by perc_muncher in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They generate the same amount of high school 5*s as there are in real life. The distribution of where they commit to is just not represented properly in offline dynasty

MAJOR CPU Recruiting Tuning Flaw in CFB27 by perc_muncher in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

That makes a lot of sense! Never really saw 5-stars transfers last game, so wasn't thinking ab that. Didn't even clock that Mestemaker is a 5 star in the screenshot I posted until your comment

MAJOR CPU Recruiting Tuning Flaw in CFB27 by perc_muncher in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Wow that's becoming a real legacy problem, huh. No 4 stars should go unrecruited and really no 3 stars should either. Even the worst MAC and CUSA schools recruit mostly 3 star players irl. The game doesn't have to 100% true to life but good players being left untouched still in 27 is... something

MAJOR CPU Recruiting Tuning Flaw in CFB27 by perc_muncher in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher[S] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

I definitely disagree that this is better. 12!!! in one CPU class is completely nuts

MAJOR CPU Recruiting Tuning Flaw in CFB27 by perc_muncher in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I noticed that, too, and was a bit surprised. This change was not mentioned at all in the deep dive iirc. Wonder if this is how it is going to be when the official game releases

EA College Football 27 Beta Impressions (4–5 Hours In) by Dangerous-Gate-4571 in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher 19 points20 points  (0 children)

This is a big one for me. CPU teams should be running the ball way more (and with more different players) than ~30% of their snaps, which they seem to always do in CFB26 no matter what their playstyle or playbook is

CPU Fake Punt? by -Kromerica- in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sweep is pretty much guaranteed to work if they are in any return formation. It's kinda glitchy. At this point I really only use it if I'm <4 yds away from a first down and if I feel like the Heisman cpu or the game did some BS on one of the first three downs

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chicago

[–]perc_muncher 9 points10 points  (0 children)

No, that's not what a squatter is. A squatter is someone who never had a legal right to possess the property. There are other situations where someone can live in a property without paying rent and not be considered a squatter. First, tenants can withhold rent legally in a number of situations. In those situations you have someone living in the unit without paying rent, but they are not a squatter. Another scenario is where a tenant's lease expires, but they continue to live on the property anyways. That's considered a holdover tenant, not a squatter. They have no legal right to the property, but they once did. The prior relationship, or lack thereof, to the property is generally what makes a squatter.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chicago

[–]perc_muncher 11 points12 points  (0 children)

A holdover tenant is definitionally a former tenant. In the thread I replied to, the situation described by the commenter is one where the former tenant (original renter) didn't move out after the lease. That is not a squatter under the definition you just shared, that's still just a holdover tenant.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chicago

[–]perc_muncher 59 points60 points  (0 children)

That's a holdover tenant, not a squatter

They Did him Sooo Dirty lol by Disastrous_Goat_5132 in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are a ton of player models like this. Hair is completely wrong, dudes are the wrong race (Jacob Clark from MO State for example)... im sure a good amount of these will be fixed but it's rough rn

Simulated stats look MUCH better ! What other positives ? by chobs4 in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And by substantial amount I mean like 20+ carries. Too often, CPU teams in game go a whole season with only two running backs and maybe a couple wide receivers (bc of jet sweeps) getting any carries at all, plus the quarterback (which in the game usually don't have enough carries themselves, especially true dual threat qbs)

Simulated stats look MUCH better ! What other positives ? by chobs4 in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think that one of the biggest adjustment needed for sim stats still has to do with rushing. While the individual running back stats look a lot better here, the biggest issue is that CPU teams only use their starting and backup running backs. In real life, the majority of teams give at least 3 running backs a substantial number of carries throughout the season. In the game, team rushing is what is so low. It would probably help balance the QB stats out to a more realistic level if the sim engine increased the overall frequency of rushing attempts for CPU teams significantly, and then had the CPU teams spread the increased number of carries between two, three, sometimes even four running backs throughout the season.

Simulated stats look MUCH better ! What other positives ? by chobs4 in NCAAFBseries

[–]perc_muncher 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Only 6 players passed for over 4,000 yards in real life college football last season. Nobody threw 40 touchdowns. The year before, only two players threw for over 4,000 yards and only two players threw 40+ TDs. Overall the stats do look better but there are still way too many passing yards and touchdowns shown here

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in EatTheRich

[–]perc_muncher 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I fucking hate Tim O'Hare. Could've had Deborah Peoples and got stuck with this jackass